Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KECA 952 (KLR)

Njagi Njeru Elias v Fausino Njeru Njoka & 21 Others

Court of Appeal of Kenya
9 May 2025
1,114 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

When one party to a Kenyan appeal dies, the appeal survives against everyone else, but substituting a family member requires a proper grant for that appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a reference to the full court under rule 57 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 from a ruling of Muchelule, JA (dated 16th May 2023), declining to substitute Jecinta Kiura Njeru, the widow, for the deceased 1st respondent, Faustino Njeru Njoka, who had died on 7th October 2021. The single judge had found that the appeal abated under rule 102(2) because the application for substitution was brought more than a year after death, and that the limited grant ad litem held by the widow related to a different suit (ELC No. E012 of 2021 (O.S.)) and did not authorise her to represent the estate in this appeal. The full court restated the limited scope of a reference: it is not an appeal, and the full bench may interfere only where the single judge misdirected himself, took into account an irrelevant matter, failed to consider a relevant matter, or was plainly wrong, citing Habo Agencies Limited v Wilfred Odhiambo Musingo. The court agreed with the single judge on substitution: a limited grant for a separate suit did not make the widow the estate's legal representative for this appeal. However, it found the judge erred insofar as the ruling suggested the entire appeal had abated; abatement operated only against the deceased respondent, leaving the appeal active against the remaining twenty respondents. The reference was allowed only to that extent, and, the application being unopposed, costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Standard for interfering with a single judge's decision on a reference under rule 57

Holding

The full court cannot substitute its own discretion for that of the single judge; interference is only permissible on the established grounds of misdirection, failure to consider relevant matters, consideration of irrelevant matters, or a plainly wrong decision.

Reasoning

The court adopted the principle from Habo Agencies Limited v Wilfred Odhiambo Musingo that a reference is not an appeal and that the full court's disagreement with the outcome is insufficient. The single judge exercises the court's discretion, and rule 57 confines the full bench to reviewing the process and correctness of that exercise, not re-exercising it afresh.

p. 2
02

Scope of abatement under rule 102(2) where one of several respondents dies

Holding

The appeal abated only against the deceased 1st respondent; it remains active against the remaining twenty (20) respondents. The single judge erred in overlooking this and in leaving the position of the other respondents unclear.

Reasoning

Abatement operates only against the estate of the deceased party. Since twenty other respondents were alive, the single judge's ruling that the appeal had abated under rule 102(2) could only apply to the deceased party. The full court found the reference merited to that limited extent, allowing the appellant to proceed against the surviving respondents.

p. 3
03

Substitution of a widow on a limited grant ad litem

Holding

Substitution could not be granted because the limited grant was issued for substitution in a different suit (ELC No. E012 of 2021 (O.S.)) and did not represent the deceased's estate for the purposes of this appeal.

Reasoning

The court agreed with the single judge that a legal representative for appeal purposes must hold either a general grant or a grant explicitly limited to the appeal. A grant ad litem confined to another case does not suffice. To that extent the single judge's findings could not be faulted and the substitution application fails.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • On a reference under rule 57, a full bench may only interfere with a single judge's discretion where the judge took into account an irrelevant matter, failed to take into account a relevant matter, misapprehended the law or evidence, or where the decision was plainly wrong; a reference is not an appeal.
  • An appeal abates only against the deceased party; where there are multiple respondents and only one dies, the appeal does not abate against the surviving respondents.
  • Substitution of a deceased party's widow as a party to an appeal is permissible only where she holds a general grant of letters of administration or a grant expressly limited for the purposes of that appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The reference is allowed only to the extent that the appeal has not abated against the other twenty (20) respondents, and the appellant is at liberty to pursue the appeal against them
  2. 2.Costs to abide by the outcome of the appeal, the application having been unopposed
On appeal from
Court of Appeal of Kenya (decision of a single judge, Muchelule, JA)
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 57 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 (reference to the full court from a decision of a single judge)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njagi Njeru Elias v Fausino Njeru Njoka & 21 Others", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/952/eng@2025-05-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.